Paul Ormerod makes a similar argument in Why Most Things Things Fail: that the economy is a dynamic system, therefore any theory that rests on an assumption of

Paul Ormerod makes a similar argument in Why Most Things Things Fail: that the economy is a dynamic system, therefore any theory that rests on an assumption of a static equilibrium will not reasonably approximate reality. It seems though that most economists rarely talk about the invisible hand. There seems to be more talk of 'emergence'. Personally, the use of the term 'invisible hand' seems to be increasing, but it seems, in my opinion, to be coming from those who oppose free(r) markets. And it seems to muddy the waters as it is based in metaphor. Classic liberal economists seem to agree that yes the system is dynamic, that it can rarely be predicted with the tools we have now, and that the best way to communicate the needs of the market on both the supply side and consumption side is through an unfettered price signal.